The DFL’s primary mission in this session, as in the past four or five, is to money to keep the slavering maw of government satiated and without even the most trivial want.
With that in mind, Dave Mindemann at mnpACT notes that Senator Tom “Baby Got” Bakk wants to zip down and let fly on one of Minnesota’s great third rails:
State Senator Tom Bakk will probably get a lot of heat for his tax proposal on clothing. However, he should be commended for being willing to take a leadership position on a real solution to our budget problems.
Well, let’s focus for the moment on giving him the heat he deserves. Even I, a middle-income guy with two teenagers, look at clothing as one of the most frustrating expenses in my family budget. No two ways about it; kids burn through clothes like Margaret Anderson Kelliher goes through rationalizations. And I make decent money, and have only two kids, one of whom earns a bit of her own fun money. How much worse are things for, say, a family of six with a household income of $45,000?
Indeed – I’m looking forward to Bakk and Mindeman explaining this proposal to that family of six, after getting the news this past week that government workers’ average salaries (nationwide, but it can’t be proportionally much different in Minnesota) are around $75,000, while private sector workers average around $45,000 a year, and that government employment is safe and rising while private-sector jobs are tenuous and still getting whacked by the bushelfull.
Personally, I still think any expansion of the sales tax should be on the service sector [Great, Dave. Throttle whatever recovery might just happen before it can start – Ed.] but I understand where Bakk is coming from on this proposal as well.
I’m not sure that Mindeman does, but I sure do. In the DFL’s special little world, it is the peasants’ obligation to keep government satiated first and foremost; looking to their and their families’ rude needs is secondary at best.
And in that world, it is the DFL’s and the Government’s sole prerogative to bestow dispensations and mercy within that rule:
I would be more comfortable if we moved to this type of tax with some restrictions as well. Maybe a rebate for lower income people or only tax clothing on leather or fur, or with a designer label. That is certainly up for debate, but Bakk’s general premise is a realistic position to take.
Provided that the only goal that matters is making sure government wants for nothing, ever – no matter how rough the rest of us have it.
And that is the goal:
The biggest selling point to me is that it has a particular pupose. To pay back the schools. The Governor (and his minions) have not come up with a way to reallot (is that word?), the $1.6 billion cut in education (and it IS a cut) that the Governor foisted on us last year.
Whenever a DFLer says “and it IS a cut”, the rule is always “distrust but verify”; to a liberal, cutting an increase in entitlement funding is a “cut”.
In addition, the end result in subsequent years is to lower the overall sales tax percentage.
Right. Because the Minnesota state government and its DFL-controlled bureaucracy (to say nothing of the stultifying DFL majorities in the Legislature) have such a great record at rolling back tax hikes.
Excellent plan. A realistic plan. A plan that shows leadership.
Thank you Senator Bakk, for the courage of your convictions.
Dunno, Dave. I’ll kudo Bakk’s “courage” when he takes that proposal to people outside the Capitol.
What need have you for more clothes, Mitch? Just wear what the emperor does.
When we have friends, relatives or colleagues visit from out of state, we often take them to the MOA, Cabellas or other malls and let them know that the clothing and shoes are tax-free here, which spurs them to purchase something they might not have. This means employment for some in the retail industry in the state that might go away if this guy gets his way. It is hard to fathom that a politician would be so out of touch that he feels that the state is like Oliver – always deserving ‘more’ when state employees not only receive better than the average private sector salary, they also get much better benefit packages and pension and other retirement options that we in the private sector can only dream of. As if we weren’t Taxed Enough Already, there is always some knob who can make all our dreams come true with just a little more tax revenue. Also – love the ‘bravery’ angle. Like saying Bill Maher is ‘edgy’ because he lampoons white, straight, Middle America, Christian males.
I would support this if other taxes were dropped/lowered (yes, I realize that is not even a consideration).
Example: Why should I pay a 10% tax on beer, while some gal pays no tax on a $150 pair of jeans?
I say lower the tax to 5.5% (to match Wisconsin), but make it apply to clothing. No more tax breaks to Big Clothing!!
I like a 50% tax on Birkenstocks, berets, black turtlenecks, hemp clothing, peasant dresses and those faggy ‘crocs’.
The Beast consumes capital and initiative, and craps entitlement.
Harry Reid thinks an additional 36,000 unemployed is “good news”. I say we tax the unemployed.
Oh wait. We already do. Never mind.
Mitch wrote: “after getting the news this past week that government workers’ average salaries (nationwide, but it can’t be proportionally much different in Minnesota) are around $75,000, while private sector workers average around $45,000 a year, and that government employment is safe and rising while private-sector jobs are tenuous and still getting whacked by the bushelfull.”
It angers me to no end that the $45K guy is paying the salary of the $75K guy, and his Cadillac pension, health care, on and on. I say in these troubled times we drastically cut the $75K guys salary, and the number collecting these salaries. Further cut the pay and per-diem of the legislative representatives and make their make their salaries in line with the part-time employment it really should be. No pay for any special sessions! Also require a vote by the citizenry for any future pay increases. Judging by their demonstrated intellect and competency many of them are hugely overpaid.
No tax on food and clothing does correlate with the Founders’ principle that one does not tax a man on the essentials to live.
Now about that property tax……
Going to see Rep. Seifert tonight in Elk River. What do you guys think between Seifert and Emmer?
I”m keeping my counsel on that race, other than that I want either of them to win the goober race.
I did throw my support to a candidate (for what that’s worth) at my convention the other night – but I’m not publicizing it.
jpmn, Mitch is completely uncommitted. He said so in an earlier post.
swiftee supports raising taxes? Now I’ve seen everything.
I’m not just asking Mitch. I am asking all readers of his blog for their opinion.
After having met and listening to both I am leaning Seifert. However, I agree with Mitch either is better than the possible DFL opponents.